Age Of Aisha

Age of Aisha vs History (التاريخ)

Any attempt to weaken the chains of Aisha’s Hadith is futile.

It’s a dead-end …

About 8 different students of Aisha reported her words – so its a solid report – mass-transmitted.

If that is not authentic – then nothing is authentic.

The real questions are:

FIRSTLY:

Could Aisha – رضي الله عنها – be mistaken about her age?

As Shaykh Idlibi alluded to here: https://www.facebook.com/mohmand.laghmani/posts/10159959312938496

Yes – Of course it’s possible!

The Prophet (ﷺ) said:

إِنَّا أُمَّةٌ أُمِّيَّةٌ، لاَ نَكْتُبُ وَلاَ نَحْسُبُ
“We are an illiterate nation;
We neither write, nor know accounts.”
[Sahih Bukhari, 1913].

So dates were guess work from memory.

People remembered dates by linking them to big events, like “the year of the elephant” or “the year of the famine”.

These things were not always written down – so it is possible that Aisha was mistaken.

She had one of the greatest minds – but she was also mistaken on many issues, on which the Sahaba opposed her.

That’s OK – she’s human – not infallible.

SECONDLY:

Did scholars rely on History to cross-check narrations?

Yes – Imam al-Sakhawi dedicated an entire book to this topic – its called:

الإعلان بالتوبيخ
لمن ذم أهل التوريخ

It’s a 400 page book in which he argues the importance of history and criticises those who downplay its importance.

History was not some external tool – it had become an integral part of the process in Hadith sciences.

He brings many examples from the Salaf, relying heavily on History, such as:

1- Sufyan al-Thawri said (p. 38):
لَمَّا اسْتَعْمَلَ الرُّوَاةُ الْكَذِبَ اسْتَعْمَلْنَا لَهُمُ التَّارِيخَ
“When the narrators started using lies,
We started using history against them.”

2- Hassan Bin Zayd said (p. 39):
لَمْ نَسْتَعِنْ عَلَى الْكَذَّابِينَ بِمِثْلِ التَّارِيخِ
“We did not rely on anything against the liars more than on history.”

3- A man was narrating from Khalid bin Ma’dan (p. 39).

Ismail bin Ayyash asked him: “In which year did you write narrations from Khalid bin Ma’dan?”

He replied: “In the year 113.”

Ismail said:
أنت تزعم أنك سمعت من خالد بن معدان بعد موته بسبع سنين ؟
“So you claim to have heard from him 7 years after his death?”

4- [Al-Mu’allā] said (p. 41): ‘Abū Wā’il narrated to us, he said: ‘Ibn Mas’ūd attacked us on the day of Siffīn’.

So Abū Nu’aym said:
أَتُرَاهُ بُعِثَ بَعْدَ الْمَوْتِ
‘Do you think he was raised after death?’

[Ibn Mas’ūd passed away in 32 or 33H, several years before the day in question]

History has always been important to scholars – not only to cross-check narrators, but also the content of the narrations – which could be wrong – not always for malicious reasons, but genuine mistakes.

Al-Zarkhashi also mentioned :

معرفة التاريخ المتعلق بالمتون

Muhadith Al-Mu’allimi Al-Yamani says ‘Al-Fawaid al-Majmua’ (353):

النظر في متن الخير ، كل من تأمل منطوق الخبر ، ثم عرضه على الواقع ، عرف حقيقة الحال
“… Then present [the content of the narration] to reality and you will know the truth of the matter.”

There are even narrations in Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim which classical scholars problematised – because they clashed with historical evidences.

It’s rare – but it happens.

To Conclude:

The reason I’m posting this is because when I posted Al-Idlibi’s analysis of Aisha’s age in light of history – most people appreciated it, but some friends private messaged me – downplaying the importance of history.

History doesn’t lie – if historical evidences are strong, then they are evidence.

I’m not saying that Al-Idlibi’s conclusion is correct or incorrect – I am not a scholar, nor a historian, so I cannot comment on that.

All I’m saying is : he is qualified and has every right to research this topic.

Let the scholars and historians debate.

Read his book and be open minded.

Allaahu A’alam